https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/brexit-the-threa   
   -from-the-remainersand-how-to-refute-and-defeat-them/   
      
      
   Brexit: The threat from  the Remainers…and how to refute and defeat them   
   Posted on October 17, 2016 by Robert Henderson   
   Robert Henderson   
      
   The anti-democratic behaviour of the remainers over the EU referendum vote  is   
   not a surprise but the brazenness and crudity of their attempts  is still   
   shocking  and deeply  worrying  because  a majority of those with power and   
   public influence   in the    
   UK – politicians, academics, mediafolk or the hodge podge of those working   
   for think tanks and charities – are remainers at heart.   That applies to   
   the people at the very head of the government for  none of the holders of the   
   four great offices of    
   state  is a sincere Brexiteer.  We have a  PM (Theresa May) , Chancellor   
   (Philip Hammond)  and Home Secretary(Amber Rudd) who are by temperament,    
   conviction and public statement  Europhiles and a foreign Secretary (Boris   
   Johnson)  who is a slippery    
   careerist liable to change his position back to remainer anytime he thinks it   
   will benefit him.  In addition,  Theresa May is the worst sort of remainer,   
   namely, a cowardly one, whose taste for duplicity was shown during the   
   Referendum  campaign when she    
    wanted to have her  political cake and eat it by saying she was for remaining   
   in the EU whilst doing precious little campaigning for a remain vote.   
      
   It is true that  May has appointed two ministers( David Davies and Liam Fox   
   )who are solid supporters of Brexit to oversee the day-to-day progress of   
   Brexit,  but they   could well turn out to be window dressing to enable May to   
   allay the  suspicions  of    
   those who want Brexit that she is working towards arranging a deal with the EU   
   for the UK  to remain stitched into the fabric of the EU. Once  Article 50 is   
   triggered May could decide to dump them or adopt such an obstructive stance    
   prompt them to    
   resign.  Once Article 50  goes live that  gives her two years breathing space   
   to subvert the aims of Brexit and provides ample opportunity to claim that   
   concessions  on things such as  free movement  or paying a fee for access to   
   the single market will    
   have to be made.   We already have hints of this in the priming of the media    
   with stories about how all existing EU immigrants to the UK  – all 3,.6   
   million of them – will be allowed to stay.   
      
   UKip’s immediate purpose   
      
   The potential grip the remainers have on the Brexit process means that is   
   essential  for  May and Co  to be  kept under the tightest scrutiny until the    
   UK is out of  the EU .  That is Ukip’s  immediate purpose.  To this end   
   everything possible should    
   be done to try to  persuade Nigel Farage to stay on until Brexit is secured.   
      
   The Government must be pressed whenever it fails to commit itself to these   
   lines in the sand:  no   free movement  or any other restriction by the EU on   
   the UK’s ability to control her borders;    an end to the jurisdiction of   
   the European Court of    
   Justice over the UK;  no payment by the UK of money to the EU  for any reason   
   and an end to the European Arrest Warrant . In addition, whenever,   
   politicians, especially those on the government side,  try to water down the   
   idea of Brexit through vague and    
   ambiguous wording,  this should be made a matter of public comment and   
   record.   Those who seek to subvert  the will of the British people should be   
   forced to  live in a mental world in which they know that any attempt to   
   deliver less than the Brexit    
   promised by the referendum question will be exposed for what it is, profoundly   
   anti-democratic behaviour which  not so long ago would have been called   
   treason.   
      
   Lines in the sand   
      
   The idea that lines in the sand make for a weak bargaining position does not   
   stand up. Giving away your hand before negotiating is only weakness if  one   
   side of a negotiation gives up important ground before negotiations begin. .   
   David Cameron did that    
   with his “negotiation” with the EU  before the referendum.  Cameron  not   
   only failed to have any lines in the sand he signalled his weakness by not   
   asking for a radical deal on free movement. The lines in the sand listed above   
   are signs of strength    
   which say this is what we cannot concede. Such a stance would either drive the   
   rest of the EU to decide that the best thing would be to get the UK out of the   
   EU as quickly as possible  by rapidly  agreeing to a reasonable  deal  or   
   prompt  the rest of    
   the EU hierarchy  to show their true colours of being  utterly hostile to the   
   UK . This should force the UK government to see the only way forward is to   
   simply leave and trade under WTO rules as John Redwood amongst others has   
   advocated.   
      
   Within  the general  scrutiny there is the  task of rigorously  rebutting the    
   particular claims of the remainers as to why the referendum should not be   
   accepted.  This can be readily done by sticking to the facts and following the   
   logic of what a    
   referendum implies for Parliament.   Let me demonstrate.   
      
   The lie at the heart of the remainers argument   
      
   Contrary to what the  remainers are now  claiming voters knew precisely what   
   they were voting for. The clue is in the ballot paper question (which was put   
   forward by the Electoral Commission) :   
      
   “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave   
   the European Union?”   
      
   The ballot question  did not ask should the United Kingdom remain a member of   
   the European Union or seek whether she should seek another status such as that   
   of Norway or Switzerland.  It does not say that there should be another   
   referendum on whatever    
   terms are agreed.  There is no equivocation whatsoever; the choice  was  out   
   or in.   If the UK had  left the EU the day  after the vote and  traded under   
   WTO rules or even simply  declared UDI either behaviour would have been in   
   accord with the    
   referendum question.   
      
   In addition, the European Union Referendum Act makes no provision for a   
   second  referendum on the terms of withdrawal.  There is good reason for this,   
   the question on the ballot paper was crystal clear: leave means leave.   
      
   The electors did not understand   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)